This claim has been brought by a prison inmate who alleges that from July 14,
1999 to December 12, 2000, while he was confined to the Ulster Correctional
Facility, he was exposed to tuberculosis. The claim does not contains any
factual allegations to explain this claimed exposure. Claimant served on the
Attorney General a notice of intention to file a claim on November 24, 2000
(Wagner affirmation, ¶3 and Exh A). The claim was then served on the
Attorney General and filed with the Court on December 15, 2000. In lieu of
answering, the State of New York has moved for an order of dismissal on the
ground that the claim was improperly served.[1]

In support of the motion, defense counsel has submitted a photocopy of the
envelope in which the claim was received , showing that it was served by regular
mail (Wagner affirmation, Exh B). In opposition to the motion, claimant has
provided the Court with a number of documents, some of them receipts or return
receipt cards relating to certified mail, return receipt requested. None of the
receipts or receipt cards relate to service of any document during the month of
December 2000, and, more importantly, none of them are addressed to the Attorney
General. Claimant indicates that they relate to claimant's efforts in January
and February 2001 to file supporting medical papers with the Court of Claims.

Court of Claims Act §11(a) requires that notice of intentions and claims
must be served on the Attorney General either in person or by certified mail,
return receipt requested. Failure to comply with these requirements is a fatal
jurisdictional defect and deprives this court of the power to hear the claim
(Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d 721, 724; Bogel v
State of New York, 175 AD2d 493).

Defendant's motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.

April 20, 2001Albany,
New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISEJudge of the Court of Claims

[1] Defendant also moves for dismissal of the
action on the ground that this claim is the same as Claim No. 102494, which was
dismissed – and with respect to which a motion to late-file was denied
– by former Judge Leonard Silverman (Mosely v State of New York,
Claim No. 102494, Motion No. M-61874 and Motion No. M-61988, filed Oct. 20,
2000, Silverman, J.). Claimant asserts that the causes of action are different.
Because of the Court's ruling on the more fundamental, jurisdictional ground,
there is no need to consider this dispute.